So with primaries coming up after the first of the year, who do you want in your party. Or rather, don't want. This is kind of a venting style post but would also like thoghts & opinions. I am so tired of both sides, and wish we could abolish a 2 party system.

Truly though, I voted for Obama last time I just can't bring myself to do it again, mainly because I regret it- and was deceived like so many.

Is there REALLY a candidate that fits my criteria? No.

What is that "criteria"? you ask.

# 1- Pro Life- Really why promote killing a child? Grant it, the majority of republicans don't care about babies after they are born (wanting to cut welfare, food stamps, etc...) And at the end of the day whether a baby dies from abortion, or malnutrition, or lack of healthcare a baby is nonetheless dead unfortunately.

# 2 - Pro Gay Rights- What happened to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?" IMO, 2 homosexual couples who live together and love each other, even though I agree it is wrong and sinful according to my Christian beliefs, have a right to do so. The government should not interfere.

# 3 - In favor of national healthcare. I am not certain we need FULLY socialized healthcare. However, it is gearing toward that- and with Obamacare insurance companies are going to be forced to take those that are higher risks such as pre-existing conditions etc. This in turn will cause the companies to go bankrupt and at the end of the day what do you have? NHS. As one who is married to a UK citizen, who tells me NHS is not that bad- I am inclined if it works for Massachusetts it can work for the US. (Yay Romney)

# 4 -Does not want to cut social programs- Reference number 1. Some people are UNABLE TO WORK.. due to disability and this is the reality of life- so why do we have republicans convinced everyone can work if they just put their mind to it, it just appalls me.

# 5 Will cut defense spending immensely- Why are we still sending troops overseas? Why are we repairing bridges and roads in Iraq when we won't fix our own?

Finally, to quote a couple of favorite authors & politicians & commentators of mine- Tony Campolo (who BTW would be my choice for 2012 President- if he was running:

But I contend that if we're providing total medical coverage for every man, woman, and child in Iraq, shouldn't we at least be doing the same thing for every man, woman, and child in the United States?Tony Campolo

“If this is going to be a Christian Nation that doesn’t help the poor, either we have to pretend that Jesus was just as selfish as we are, or we’ve got to acknowledge he commanded us to love the poor and serve the needy without condition, then just admit we don’t want to do it– Colbert

Bipartisan politics has become a complete media circus act. I'm encouraged when I hear people talk about issues in an honest way, not influenced one way of the other by what the media tries to sell us as either being right or left.

My candidate would be Bernie Sanders, who wants a constitutional amendment to ban corporate contributions to politicians. Corporations are NOT people. Corporations do not have the interests of people when they contribute to politicians who only support those that give them large sums of money. Therefore politicians are not supporting the people. Politics will always be corrupt until we get corporate money out of it.

All other issues will be resolved in a natural order when politicians are no longer accepting bribes.

I am very opinionated on my politics. As a moderately conservative Christian, I base my politics on that- sort of. I believe the issue of health care, welfare etc originally is indicated to fall on the church *(being the body not an individual group or church building members) The biggest issue for me is abortion- however there are plenty of other "moral" issues such as poverty. People are dying left and right from lack of Health care, malnutrition etc.

Originally churches ran Healthcare clinics & hospitals and while this is a good idea, this isn't the way it is :(

My Christian views dictate that Jesus would have been , with the exception of abortion- fairly liberal by Todays standards. He never talked about tax cuts for the wealthy Romans, but continually talked about helping the poor without reserve.

I guess at the end of the day, my choice would be Romney- smack dab in the middle.

As a long-time Libertarian, Ron Paul is the obvious choice for me. Simply put, I believe in freedom and free market capitalism.

Quote:

# 1- Pro Life- Really why promote killing a child?

Pro-choice is not "promoting killing a child". There are very few pro-choice advocates that believe in late-term abortions, a zygote is not by legal/webster's definition a child, and you can be against drinking alcohol but still realize that the prohibition was a mistake since it did not eliminate a demand and just created criminality and health issues being unregulated for example.

I also still can't understand how in the running of this country that abortion one way or another can be a primary issue. With the state of the economy and thousands dying in warfare and ecological and energy challenges we face, would it really be considered a "win" if most importantly abortions were again only performed by people visiting Canada or Mexico, importing abortion drugs illegally, or getting "back alley" abortions as was done before? Perhaps someone can explain it better to me, or is the thought that banning abortions would eliminate abortions?

Quote:

Some people are UNABLE TO WORK.. due to disability and this is the reality of life

It is extremely rare that someone is so disabled that they can't serve any utility to society whatsoever. A mentally handicapped person can usually still get shopping carts out of the parking lot or pick up trash on the side of the road. And considering this is the information age and the majority of work in the United States is not labor intensive, being able-bodied really isn't an absolute requirement. I could do my job very easily from a wheelchair with only one functional arm. There is a big difference between working but still needing a helping hand to maintain a reasonable quality of life, and refusing to lift a finger.

Regarding national healthcare, I wouldn't look to the UK, but rather simply to Canada. If you break your leg in Canada, no problem, you'll be taken care of. If you need a specialist or have cancer, guess where most middle-class and up Canadians go? The United States, because the idea that you can get something for nothing or that the government is more efficient than private industries competing with one another for business just doesn't hold water, and it doesn't eliminate the issues of malpractice cases costing the industry billions.

There really is no reason that health insurance should be any different than car insurance. A bare minimum "emergency comprehensive" should be required by law, but there is no reason that consumers shouldn't have a choice about how much extra coverage they want or need (a 20 year bachelor doesn't need the coverage of a 58 year old with existing health conditions three dependents, nor is it fair to make the 20 year old pay as much as the person using hundreds of times more than him), and have the freedom to go with a service provider they like. If USAA or Progressive insurance doesn't treat me with the respect and professionalism I like, I can simply switch to Allstate or Amica Insurance.

But if I don't like how I'm being treated at the DMV with an hour and a half wait line only to be told by some rude gum chewing unmotivated government worker that its time for her break when I'm finally next in line... well, tough, because you have no choice and the government knows you have NO ONE else you can resort to. As an example, I asked the government about a firearms related issue... three months ago, but their turn-around time to answer a simple question is typically SIX MONTHS. In private industry, taking more than 5 days to respond to an email would be considered unacceptable customer service.

It is extremely rare that someone is so disabled that they can't serve any utility to society whatsoever. A mentally handicapped person can usually still get shopping carts out of the parking lot or pick up trash on the side of the road. And considering this is the information age and the majority of work in the United States is not labor intensive, being able-bodied really isn't an absolute requirement. I could do my job very easily from a wheelchair with only one functional arm. There is a big difference between working but still needing a helping hand to maintain a reasonable quality of life, and refusing to lift a finger.

In private industry, taking more than 5 days to respond to an email would be considered unacceptable customer service.

My 83 year old uncle is mentally handicapped. When he was younger, he had a job as a busboy at a restaurant for many years. I applaud companies that will give these folks a chance. But there is a slight problem in our country right now concerning unemployment. I've seen college graduates get turned down when they apply for those shopping cart pushing jobs you referred to. And it's not because the store thinks they'll walk away, its that there are too many unemployed people fighting for the same meager jobs. At least returning vets get a little preference around here. Mentally handicapped people won't get jobs these days unless the company is given incentive to hire them. Where are the jobs? Offshore.

As a former employee of Sears, I sent them a letter last year trying to find out some information about my pension. I did get a response back from them immediately, but that response was that it would take them 3 months to answer my question. I had a job offer dependent on that answer. So I called my BIL, a director at Sears to ask what was up. Apparently they offshored their entire pension management function, and the people that now run it are completely clueless. Good customer service, eh?

When you let free market capital run its own course, things happen like jobs going overseas because the politicians are bribed by companies to support whatever they need to make a buck, or as they put it "control their operating costs". Get corporations out of bed with politicians and there will be an honest free market capital system in our country, not one biased thru bribery.

It is extremely rare that someone is so disabled that they can't serve any utility to society whatsoever. A mentally handicapped person can usually still get shopping carts out of the parking lot or pick up trash on the side of the road. And considering this is the information age and the majority of work in the United States is not labor intensive, being able-bodied really isn't an absolute requirement.

It is for those without degrees and higher education.

I could do my job very easily from a wheelchair with only one functional arm. There is a big difference between working but still needing a helping hand to maintain a reasonable quality of life, and refusing to lift a finger.

So a job like that is going to allow them to work enough to make ends meet?

Additionally, isn't a medical degree required to determine whether or not someone is truly handicapped? This kind of viewpoint is very detrimental. Even if they are able to, what employer is going to hire a mentally handicapped person without motivation or incentive such as the SSD ticket to work program

I see there are plenty of people who are unable to work due to disability- it is a fact of life. I get so sick of everyone who doesnt have a medical degree saying who is or is not able to do something. Youre not a doctor, and you dont know all the circumstances in every situation. unless you are an MD , then my apologies.

Pro-choice is not "promoting killing a child". There are very few pro-choice advocates that believe in late-term abortions, a zygote is not by legal/webster's definition a child, and you can be against drinking alcohol but still realize that the prohibition was a mistake since it did not eliminate a demand and just created criminality and health issues being unregulated for example.

I also still can't understand how in the running of this country that abortion one way or another can be a primary issue. With the state of the economy and thousands dying in warfare and ecological and energy challenges we face, would it really be considered a "win" if most importantly abortions were again only performed by people visiting Canada or Mexico, importing abortion drugs illegally, or getting "back alley" abortions as was done before? Perhaps someone can explain it better to me, or is the thought that banning abortions would eliminate abortions?

Outlawing it will not change the fact it happens. My "abortion" solution can be found on my blog, but will also snippet it here.

I have three “proposals” which would go a lot further in preventing abortion.

# 1 – Proper Education at a young age.

The facts: Teenagers are going to have sex, no matter what anyone says to them, in knowing this and coming p with a solution for it, would be proper education – and moral persuasion (through the church and family — not public school).

# 2- Access to birth control

So many times you get people upset about teenagers being given birth control, or being allowed to obtain birth control behind their parents back. Well if we are going with the assumption they re going to have sex anyway, regardless of what anyone says— then to give them access to birth control would prevent an unwanted pregnancy, and prevent an abortion.

# 3 – Finally, there needs to be health care incentives for women to carry the baby to term, even if they give it up for adoption. This is achieved through low cost or free prenatal care, ultrasounds, well women checkups etc.

Reasons women have abortions, and what we can do to prevent the top 2 reasons.

* having a baby would interfere with work, school or other responsibilities;

Offer employer or school day cares – there is also funding available for low income parents to get child care subsidy through the government, i.e part of their child care tuition paid.

* they cannot afford a child;

Offer more access to nutrition services (such as WIC) for children, as well as other things for parents who are struggling to get by. yes this would increase taxes, but at the end of the day- if it means an innocent child is taken care of and not starving to death isn’t it worth it ultimately?

yep its going to cost money. But at the end of the day, both politicians have closets of dead babies- either through abortion or through malnutrition & lack of healthcare.

When you let free market capital run its own course, things happen like jobs going overseas because the politicians are bribed by companies to support whatever they need to make a buck, or as they put it "control their operating costs". Get corporations out of bed with politicians and there will be an honest free market capital system in our country, not one biased thru bribery.

My 83 year old uncle is mentally handicapped. When he was younger, he had a job as a busboy at a restaurant for many years. I applaud companies that will give these folks a chance. But there is a slight problem in our country right now concerning unemployment.

When you let free market capital run its own course, things happen like jobs going overseas because the politicians are bribed by companies to support whatever they need to make a buck, or as they put it "control their operating costs". Get corporations out of bed with politicians and there will be an honest free market capital system in our country, not one biased thru bribery.

I am quite sure that everyone would agree that 83 years old is beyond retirement age regardless, and I would assume he should be receiving social security and various other forums of assistance and lower costs/discounts. I can assure you that if the only issues we had were idle 83 year old mentally handicapped people, there would be zero budgetary concerns for social services.

I don't think all jobs have been offshored, especially not picking up trash at a park or side of the road as the examples provided, and its always interesting how there are no jobs available and yet millions of illegal aliens take significant risks to get here to work those jobs that don't exist, despite all too frequently no highschool education and an inability to even speak the language.

And you must realize that the more power you give politicians, who are often rotating upper management in major corporations to begin with, the more control these corporations have to sway policy in their favor. As it is, the government even provides incentives via greatly reduced taxes for jobs to be offshored, because liberals say "tax the corporations they have money", so when the taxes are too high they simply move branches of their offices, move production, or just offshore contract work as that way they don't have to pay high payroll taxes. Free market capitalism btw is the reason for the sudden economic boom in China, so long impoverished due to a heavily regulated socialist government which is woefully inefficient and destroys jobs. They finally decided to allow the economy to grow organically and leave it alone, and voila, the GDP is skyrocketing.

The foreign production of American goods is not a new thing. I'm old enough to remember when almost everything cheap in the U.S. was made in Japan. Remember, I was born just a few years after WWII, and long before that country became the powerhouse it is today. Now, if you want to find the best electric guitars (for example), you look for "MIJ" types; Made In Japan. Making inexpensive stuff for the U.S. raised the income level so much in Japan that today, they are considered one of the wealthier nations in the world and import most of their inexpensive stuff from China, just like we do. The same thing is happening in South Korea and someday, so help me Henry Ford, it will probably happen in North Korea and eventually in Africa.

We have long had a rolling arrangement with various countries to produce our inexpensive consumer goods. During the early 1800's, WE were the cheap producers for Europe. This has long been a way of equalizing the wealth in a country. Ever bought anything Swiss? They produce excellent products that depend on high quality and low raw material input. Cheap stuff they have made elsewhere. The U.S. is getting that way. These realignments go on, have gone on, and will go on all the time.

And when anything happens to reflect badly on China, such as, the massive pet food recall some time ago, the responsible/corrupt individuals/executives are taken into the square and executed. Yep, that would probably work here. Let's hear it for China's free-market capitalism.

And when anything happens to reflect badly on China, such as, the massive pet food recall some time ago, the responsible/corrupt individuals/executives are taken into the square and executed. Yep, that would probably work here. Let's hear it for China's free-market capitalism.

Obama is the designated Democratic nominee, so this is about the Republican crop of candidates. With the exception of Huntsman they are all clowns, and Huntsman is just too reasonable for the extremists in the Tea Party, and too "not Christian" for the evangelicals.

I'm with Momofmany, we need a constitutional amendment to correct the ridiculous notion that corporations are people with all the same rights and privileges of individuals while simultaneously enjoying immunities from the liabilities "people" are subject to. When was the last time you saw a corporation go to jail for violating the penal code? They do it all the time, and in the few instances when the regulators actually do their job instead of taking money from corporations they get a little fine and continue the same behavior.

I would go even further, with that amendment I'd enact a set of laws completely outlawing any private money going to any person holding public office, outlaw all lobbying and institute public financing of campaigns by making the first $50 of income tax paid eligible for a "voter voucher." This would raise more than enough money to finance all federal elections. Each voter could dole out the money any way they choose but nobody would have more than $50 to spend.

I don't like everything Obama has done, but I can't imagine the GOP giving me a viable alternative for many years to come.

Obama is the designated Democratic nominee, so this is about the Republican crop of candidates. With the exception of Huntsman they are all clowns, and Huntsman is just too reasonable for the extremists in the Tea Party, and too "not Christian" for the evangelicals.

I'm with Momofmany, we need a constitutional amendment to correct the ridiculous notion that corporations are people with all the same rights and privileges of individuals while simultaneously enjoying immunities from the liabilities "people" are subject to. When was the last time you saw a corporation go to jail for violating the penal code? They do it all the time, and in the few instances when the regulators actually do their job instead of taking money from corporations they get a little fine and continue the same behavior.

I would go even further, with that amendment I'd enact a set of laws completely outlawing any private money going to any person holding public office, outlaw all lobbying and institute public financing of campaigns by making the first $50 of income tax paid eligible for a "voter voucher." This would raise more than enough money to finance all federal elections. Each voter could dole out the money any way they choose but nobody would have more than $50 to spend.

I don't like everything Obama has done, but I can't imagine the GOP giving me a viable alternative for many years to come.

Lets repeal child labor laws and put them poor kids to work as janitors because you know, they have no business learning or aspiring to do anything more than menial, minimum wage jobs.

Well, the child labor laws were in effect when I was growing up, and I got jobs starting at 14, during the summer. Yes, they were largely menial jobs, fetch and carry type of stuff. Slowly got better at working, being on time, finishing a job without supervision, etc. I don't have any problem with teenagers doing menial jobs; at least they'll know what they don't want to do later on in life, and why they should make every effort to be prepared for better jobs.

Well, the child labor laws were in effect when I was growing up, and I got jobs starting at 14, during the summer. Yes, they were largely menial jobs, fetch and carry type of stuff. Slowly got better at working, being on time, finishing a job without supervision, etc. I don't have any problem with teenagers doing menial jobs; at least they'll know what they don't want to do later on in life, and why they should make every effort to be prepared for better jobs.

I was referring to Newt Gingrich's recent comments suggesting that a remedy to our current economic woes is to fire all but one janitor at every school, and make him the Master Janitor to oversee the kids cleaning the building. One need not be adverse to teaching the value of hard work to see the stupidity in that.

I just thank the powers that be that here in Canada we don't have campaigning for 1 1/2 years before an election. I'd grow so weary of listening to all the rhetoric from all the candidates that promise much and deliver little.

I was referring to Newt Gingrich's recent comments suggesting that a remedy to our current economic woes is to fire all but one janitor at every school, and make him the Master Janitor to oversee the kids cleaning the building. One need not be adverse to teaching the value of hard work to see the stupidity in that.

I must be too stupid, please explain it to me. Raking leaves, sweeping floors, taking trash bags to the dumpster, these are all simple tasks that should not be a full time career for an adult. When I was 10 years old I made money after school baby sitting neighbor's kids and mowing laws. A lawn mower and edger are more dangerous tools than the simple tasks they would surely get just making sure the loose trash in the cafeteria is picked up or the floors in the classrooms are vacuumed. For a poor family, the extra minimum wage income would be quite helpful to their circumstances... heck we weren't poor, but I just liked it as I could buy the laser tag toys and Nintendo games I wanted that my allowance was insufficient to cover. Teaching the value of a dollar, work ethic, and budgeting is just icing on the cake IMO.

Now if we were talking about kids working in coal mines or saw mills, that would be another matter entirely.

Of course, I'm sure you appreciated the Ronald Reagan bumper sticker: "Why not an actor? We've had a clown the last 3 years."

I don't like any of the candidates very much. Just as I didn't like any of the Democratic candidates 4 years ago. But even those I disagree with a lot I refuse to call names, because down that road lies madness.

The college I attended in France required 5 hours of labor each week. When you add up the number of students, you can see that they saved a significant amount of money. They didn't employ a cleaning staff at all; the student labor replaced that.

Of course, I'm sure you appreciated the Ronald Reagan bumper sticker: "Why not an actor? We've had a clown the last 3 years."

I don't like any of the candidates very much. Just as I didn't like any of the Democratic candidates 4 years ago. But even those I disagree with a lot I refuse to call names, because down that road lies madness.

Oh please, we all know Ronald Reagan wouldn't stand a chance in the republican primary simply because he was too moderate. The reason all those clowns are out there is because they are reflecting the insane wishes of the racists in the South.

We all knew the truth and saw this coming when Joe Wilson stood up and called the president a liar at the State of the Union Address.

Regarding national healthcare, I wouldn't look to the UK, but rather simply to Canada. If you break your leg in Canada, no problem, you'll be taken care of. If you need a specialist or have cancer, guess where most middle-class and up Canadians go? The United States, because the idea that you can get something for nothing or that the government is more efficient than private industries competing with one another for business just doesn't hold water, and it doesn't eliminate the issues of malpractice cases costing the industry billions.

I'm an American who has lived in British Columbia for over 10 years. The vast majority of middle-class Canadians here cannot afford to go to the U.S. for health care, not after paying 50% on income taxes and 12% taxes on essential goods and services. Paying full U.S. prices for medical treatments is simply NOT an option for most Canadians even if the surgery or procedure is not available in Canada. Sometimes Canadians will collect donations if there is a child who needs life-saving surgery that is available in the U.S. but most people have to deal with health care problems on their own. One of my doctors interned in the U.S. and told me that in Canada they make you wait, and "they make you suffer." You have to wait months, sometimes years, for certain surgeries. Sometimes you have to wait a year or more just to be under the care of a primary care physician! A Canadian member of this site was diagnosed with cancer and her surgery was scheduled to be done IN THREE MONTHS. Thankfully, she is okay but cancer + time is a scary combination, and if you're rich you can pay for the travel, lodging, and medical treatments but most Canadians simply cannot.

As an "old" Canadian, I take issue with information like this. I have had cancer and it was treated quickly and efficiently in 1972. Today I am still cancer free and pretty healthy.

I moved to a new community about 21 months ago and had a new family physician within 1 week of moving. There was an 1-800 number to call to de-register from my current physician and as soon as that was done I was contacted by another organization to find me a doctor in my new area that was taking new patients. I ended up with an amazing young doctor who is extremely knowledgeable.

It is true that getting an MRI takes some time in Canada because we don't have the same number of MRI's available as in the US but if it is truly needed or required, they are done. I live in a senior's building and have regular contact with old people and often drive them to their doctor appointments and that included MRI tests. In fact one gentleman has had 2 done since August. None of them are being put off from getting the medical assistance they need. I can't help but wonder if the persons complaining about lack of medical service are not just folks who "believe in their own minds" that they are too important to wait for a specialist visit, or that they should have mega-tests run and if their family doctor won't waste medical resources running unnecessary tests, they'll go someplace else.

I'll take our medical system here in Canada over any other country with maybe the exception of Britian.

Have there been instances of bad decisions by the medical folks? Absolutely! Are they the norm? Absolutely not! One can take one bad story and make it out to be the example of the whole system but that doesn't make it true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SwampWitch

I'm an American who has lived in British Columbia for over 10 years. The vast majority of middle-class Canadians here cannot afford to go to the U.S. for health care, not after paying 50% on income taxes and 12% taxes on essential goods and services. Paying full U.S. prices for medical treatments is simply NOT an option for most Canadians even if the surgery or procedure is not available in Canada. Sometimes Canadians will collect donations if there is a child who needs life-saving surgery that is available in the U.S. but most people have to deal with health care problems on their own. One of my doctors interned in the U.S. and told me that in Canada they make you wait, and "they make you suffer." You have to wait months, sometimes years, for certain surgeries. Sometimes you have to wait a year or more just to be under the care of a primary care physician! A Canadian member of this site was diagnosed with cancer and her surgery was scheduled to be done IN THREE MONTHS. Thankfully, she is okay but cancer + time is a scary combination, and if you're rich you can pay for the travel, lodging, and medical treatments but most Canadians simply cannot.

"We" certainly don't like Obama, at least not "we" in the sense of majority vote.

Obama's current approval rating is at 43 / 47 / 44 percent approval and 49 / 51 / 54 percent disapproval according to the latest Gallup, Rasmussen, and AP polls, showing that the majority of the country is unhappy with his current job performance. These numbers at present (granted plenty of time for "change"), are also lower than any any president that has ever won a reelection. The question will be whether or not he still is able to spend a lot of money and buy enough votes.

Regarding racism, yes there are racist that voted against Obama because he is half-black, but there are also clearly racists that voted for Obama because he is half-black. Over 96% of black voters voted for Obama, whereas the white vote was divided nearly 50/50, demonstrating clear signs of racial prejudice within the black community but no clear statistical difference within whites.

Personally though, if my man doesn't win nomination, I could honestly care less if Obama wins reelection. As much as I dislike his Administration's policies, they are likely not far removed from what your standard fair Republican would have done in the same position. I just don't want to see the house, senate, and executive branch under control of a single party, as we've seen the absolute spending party they will have without checks and balances with the Democrats. A democrat congress and republican president and visa versa would be fine though.